Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
SolEX01 said:
^ Curiosity led to Eve eating the forbidden fruit.   :)  I guess we're all the consequences of what she learned.   ;)
A sweeping generalization drawn from one instance does not logically apply to all cases.  Why would God have created humanity with curiosity?  Or would you blame curiosity and interest in learning somehow to the Fall? (which hadn't happened before the case you cite).  :-\

This could possibly also be an "apples and oranges" fallacy since I do not see how scientific research is comparable to this example.

The followers of Nietschze exclaimed "God Is Dead" out of sheer pride and sheer audacity.
Oh?  May I ask on what you base this assertion please?  And which followers are you thinking of?

I have to admit that I liked Demetrios G.'s amino acids explanation - a job well done <applause icon> !!
But did he explain it correctly?  I can't check his link to see if it is true, supports his claim or is from someone who is reputable to make statements on biology as I get a  "Sorry, your request could not be processed because the qualifier of the URL (/science...a45634a8145785) is incorrect."  message. 

Do you like his "explanation" because it would seem to support your already held opinion?  Or do you have some background and knowledge of biology and amino acids? 

We have a very qualified biologist as a member of the forum.  I would be interested to read what he would have to say on this when he has the time since he is in the Ukraine at the moment.

Ebor

 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Ebor said:
A sweeping generalization drawn from one instance does not logically apply to all cases.
How is the story of the fall a sweeping generalization please?

Ebor said:
Oh?  May I ask on what you base this assertion please?  And which followers are you thinking of?
This may be a sweeping generalization.  But I would think pride and audacity would hold in many cases.
 
Ebor said:
I would be interested to read what he would have to say on this when he has the time since he is in the Ukraine at the moment.
Why?   

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
GabrieltheCelt said:
How is the story of the fall a sweeping generalization please?
I don't read Ebor as calling the fall a sweeping generalization; rather, she seems to be calling the fall the one instance on which SolEX01 has based his sweeping generalization.

Who better to consult for a scientific perspective on how life itself came to be than a biologist (as opposed to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even know what science really is)?
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
GabrieltheCelt said:
This may be a sweeping generalization.  But I would think pride and audacity would hold in many cases.
Some names and examples of these "many cases" would be helpful in supporting this claim.  Who might be the "followers" with "pride and audacity"? 

  Why?   
Because Heorhji is a person who is trained and educated in Biology.  He has credentials and has true knowledge of the subject.  He has an understanding of biological processes and functions.  We know from a post in the last few months that his work has been accepted for publication in a reputable journal in the field.  He would be a reliable source of information about biology.  That's why.

There are reliable sources that one may go to for information, and there are some who think they know or act as experts who are, in fact, not any such thing or they may have only partial knowledge or understanding or base things partly on truth and partly on a mistake.  It is important to be able to discern this and just because someone is saying things that one agrees with or likes does not make them a reliable support or source for real information and truth.

Ebor


 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,740
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Ebor said:
A sweeping generalization drawn from one instance does not logically apply to all cases.  Why would God have created humanity with curiosity?
 

To be tempted by Satan - a created entity who defied God.  We all know the story of Genesis.  Eve was curious; She wanted to be like God and she ate the forbidden fruit.

Today, curious people in Montgomery County, MD play with human DNA and earn a comfortable living - enough to rank 5th in the USA for median income.

Ebor said:
Or would you blame curiosity and interest in learning somehow to the Fall? (which hadn't happened before the case you cite).  :-\
What did Adam & Eve learn from Satan?  That they were naked and ashamed.  I'm sticking strictly to Creationism - I'm not even thinking about Evolution.  :)

Ebor said:
This could possibly also be an "apples and oranges" fallacy since I do not see how scientific research is comparable to this example.
You call it fallacy; I call it faith.  Because of Eve's curiosity, all of us are curious.  Some of us who are Orthodox Christians are still curious about God, Christ and the Trinity while others try to use science to answer all questions.

Now we shift to Nietschze....

Ebor said:
Oh?  May I ask on what you base this assertion please?  And which followers are you thinking of?
Without God, there's freedom.  I'm basically regurgitating my understanding of Nietschze.  If I've fallen short, I apologize.

Ebor said:
Do you like his "explanation" because it would seem to support your already held opinion?  Or do you have some background and knowledge of biology and amino acids?
I hold an Engineering degree.  While that doesn't make me a biologist, I can understand the terminology and conclude that something above and beyond normal biochemistry was required to take the building blocks and turn them into what we call, Life. 
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,740
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Ebor said:
Some names and examples of these "many cases" would be helpful in supporting this claim.  Who might be the "followers" with "pride and audacity"?
There are people who have experienced vast freedom and experienced pride and audacity.  For starters, any 20th and 21st Century Dictator, Modern Hollywood actors and actresses, anything else would take the topic further off tangent.  :)
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Demetrios G. said:
I have the same curiosities. It is nothing more than pride that fuels our ego to know everything. Chances are that we will never know. The evolution theory along with the big bang are not a proven fact. There is a big problem call the horizon problem with the big bang. In fact It destroys it and the evolution theory is even worse.

  The current theory in fashion is that somehow, in the primordial soup, a bolt of lightning struck a bunch of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and a few sulfur atoms... and they magically combined randomly to form amino acids.

This has actually been attempted in the laboratory numerous times. Despite setting up conditions as favorably as possible, the best modern science has been able to do is to make a carbonaceous sludge containing perhaps a half dozen different amino acids in small numbers - with an equal mixture of levo and dextro molecules. It was hailed in the scientific literature and the popular press as a great triumph!

However, even if we accept on faith that somehow 20 correctly oriented (100% levo isomers) amino acids could have been spontaneously generated by the legendary bolt of lightning, with no intelligent direction at all - they would have had to be made at the exact same time and in the exact same place.

Amino acids denature and degrade fairly rapidly. The mean half life for amino acids in topsoil is 1.7 hours, and in subsoil is 12.2 hours:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a45634a8145785

So, even if you magically create all 20 amino acids at once, in the same puddle of pond scum struck by that fortuitous bolt of lightning, and they all just happen to be 100% levo isomers, you've got less than 24 hours for that group of amino acids to somehow find a way to randomly link themselves up into no fewer than 239 protein chains (the smallest theoretical number of proteins required to form an autonomous living thing), with an average size of 410 amino acids per protein, and all the amino acids must be linked in just the perfect sequence, then find a way to synthesize DNA and mRNA in order to replicate themselves.

And all this furious activity has to happen before the amino acids begin to degrade in 12 hours tops.

3. Even if we grant the evolutionists trillions of lightning events involving trillions of primoridial soup ponds over billions of years of the earth's existence... fine - knock of 20, 30, 1,000, heck even 10,000 powers of 10 from the odds I presented earlier. And the probability is still 1 in 10^19,345 that 239 proteins in the smallest theoretical primitive single-celled living thing were all randomly created as 100% levo isomers!

And we still haven't even mentioned the fact that they not only have to be 100% levo isomers - each and every one of those 239 proteins has to have hundreds, if not thousands of amino acids correctly sequenced!

And, remember, all this must happen in 12 hours before our amino acids begin to degrade and are useless.

So, I admire the evolutionists. Their faith is every bit as powerful as the believers!  ;)
The problem with your position is that it claims that belief in evolution and belief in God are mutually exclusive. They are not.

If God wants to use lightning on amino acids to create the universe, and explain it to the Israelites as "dust," He has the power to do that.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
SolEX01 said:
To be tempted by Satan - a created entity who defied God.  We all know the story of Genesis.  Eve was curious; She wanted to be like God and she ate the forbidden fruit.

Today, curious people in Montgomery County, MD play with human DNA and earn a comfortable living - enough to rank 5th in the USA for median income.

What did Adam & Eve learn from Satan?  That they were naked and ashamed.  I'm sticking strictly to Creationism - I'm not even thinking about Evolution.   :)

You call it fallacy; I call it faith.  Because of Eve's curiosity, all of us are curious.  Some of us who are Orthodox Christians are still curious about God, Christ and the Trinity while others try to use science to answer all questions.
Yes, the fact that Eve was curious BEFORE she fell is evidence that curiosity is part of God's creative work, part of what He called very good.  What you're vilifying is not curiosity per se, but curiosity pointed in the wrong direction.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,740
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
PeterTheAleut said:
Yes, the fact that Eve was curious BEFORE she fell is evidence that curiosity is part of God's creative work, part of what He called very good.  What you're vilifying is not curiosity per se, but curiosity pointed in the wrong direction.
The term, vilifying, is too strong a word.  :eek:  I was merely describing the consequences of Eve's curiosity.  We all make the same errors in curiosity every single day.  No wonder they say curiosity killed the cat, lol to all cat fans out there....  ;D

God gave Man curiosity to find out more about God since Man was initially exposed to God's eternal presence in Paradise.  Once Satan co-opted Eve's curiosity of what God was like, that was when Man, having been expelled from Paradise, had to resort to curiosity for His mere survival.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
SolEX01 said:
The term, vilifying, is too strong a word.   :eek:  I was merely describing the consequences of Eve's curiosity.  We all make the same errors in curiosity every single day.  No wonder they say curiosity killed the cat, lol to all cat fans out there....   ;D

God gave Man curiosity to find out more about God since Man was initially exposed to God's eternal presence in Paradise.  Once Satan co-opted Eve's curiosity of what God was like, that was when Man, having been expelled from Paradise, had to resort to curiosity for His mere survival.
No need to backtrack into double speak here to save face. ;)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
PeterTheAleut said:
Information on Cosmic Inflation theory and how this solves the Horizon Problem, as well as the problem of the universe's flatness:

http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm
Another excellent source from the man who conceived the inflationary paradigm:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

He uses a lot of high level science-speak that may fly over most heads here, but I think he communicates the basic gist well.


So, how does inflationary theory solve the horizon problem?  Inflationary theory allows the universe to have been much smaller than the classic Big Bang theory postulates, allowing the universe to achieve thermal isotropy (homogeneity) very easily before its phase of most rapid expansion made further heat transfer from one side to the other impossible.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
^ And for those who want more information and don't mind reading material written for a high level college physics course:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Albrecht/Alb_contents.html
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I seriously hope that isn't over the head of anyone here, I would genuinely be worried if it was, that has to be the most simplified version of astrophysics I've come across in a long time. ;)
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
greekischristian said:
I seriously hope that isn't over the head of anyone here, I would genuinely be worried if it was, that has to be the most simplified version of astrophysics I've come across in a long time. ;)
Seems more cosmology to me.
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
PeterTheAleut said:
Who better to consult for a scientific perspective on how life itself came to be than a biologist
Biologists can explain the origins of life?

PeterTheAleut said:
(as opposed to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even know what science really is)?
The second half of this reply (marked in parenthesis) seems like a borderline ad hominem as it doesn't address the topic but rather the character of the poster.  Perhaps he has a better understanding than we suppose but isn't able to articulate it as well as others?  Either way this is what I was referring to as 'academic/intellectual elitism' and I would've taken this reply as uncharitable.  :-\
 

Jibrail Almuhajir

Taxiarches
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
7,220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The Ozark Mountains
Ebor said:
Because Heorhji is a person who is trained and educated in Biology.  He has credentials and has true knowledge of the subject.  He has an understanding of biological processes and functions.  We know from a post in the last few months that his work has been accepted for publication in a reputable journal in the field.  He would be a reliable source of information about biology.  That's why.
No no, you misunderstood my point. I have no doubt in Heorhij's ability to explain certain biological facts, but science cannot explain everything and this is one of the topics where there is no definitive answer (at least as far as humans can answer).  My point was/is is that this whole thread is pointless really, don't you think?  After pages and pages of dialoguing, diatribing, and basically just plain 'ol fussin' and fightin', what, if anything, has been accomplished?  We have two camps who feel very strongly about their positions, with perhaps a third 'in the middle' camp.  But let's look at the big picture for a moment.  Does anyone really and truly believe for a moment that the debate will be settled here?  Is the answer even somehow remotely needed for our salvation?  Would a definitive answer prove or disprove that there is a God and that He loves you and I?  This is what I meant by asking 'why'. 
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
GabrieltheCelt said:
Biologists can explain the origins of life?
Maybe not, as I implied earlier, but a biologist can at least offer a scientific viewpoint on the origins of life, even if it is nothing more than speculation.

The second half of this reply (marked in parenthesis) seems like a borderline ad hominem as it doesn't address the topic but rather the character of the poster.
No, I didn't word my parenthetical clause to address the character of said poster.  What I addressed was his knowledge, or lack thereof, of the subject matter on which he was pontificating.

Perhaps he has a better understanding than we suppose but isn't able to articulate it as well as others?  Either way this is what I was referring to as 'academic/intellectual elitism' and I would've taken this reply as uncharitable.  :-\
Nah.  One doesn't need an understanding of science to argue for or against evolution on other grounds such as philosophy or theology.  However, if one is going to use scientific concepts to pontificate on the science of a particular point of view, then that person had better know what he's talking about.  If such person's posts show a gross misunderstanding of the nature of scientific method (i.e., to say that we should reject a scientific theory because it has not been proven fact), then, yes, his authority to pontificate on scientific matters should be called into question.  There's nothing ad hominem about this.
 
Top